Forums

Defensive Metrics Topic

Posted by burnsy483 on 9/4/2013 12:29:00 PM (view original):I'm not going to get into the specifics of the article I'm taking this from, but this was considered one of Brendan Ryan's best plays at SS over the last couple years.

I think I'm missing something here.

UZR considered this one of Ryan's best plays over the last few years. Can you figure out why?

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/4/2013 12:33:00 PM (view original):My point is, naturally, I don't NEED a number to say "Jeter has sure lost some range and Ryan is a damn good SS in the field". You seem to NEED to put a -3.7 on Jeter and a 2.6 on Ryan. Why?

In fairness, if we were to make an argument on "who is better, Ryan or Jeter?" we would use numbers. So if there's a defensive number to look at, naturally, you want to try to use it. Except the number could be meaningless if you don't use it in the right way. I want a better number.

I think that's everyone's goal.

No one is married to UZR (or plus/minus or DRS). It's just what we have. When something better gets figured out, we'll use that instead.

And, if the only thing to eat is a **** sandwich, do you chow down? Or do you wait until something better comes along?

How many times have you used fielding percentage in an argument? Because if UZR is a **** sandwich, fielding percentage is the undigested **** sandwich in the stomach of a dead guy buried last month.

I'd venture "none" but, if I did, it was in reference to the number of errors made. A guy with a .990 F% is a better fielder than a guy with a .950 F%, don't you think?

Posted by burnsy483 on 9/4/2013 12:29:00 PM (view original):I'm not going to get into the specifics of the article I'm taking this from, but this was considered one of Brendan Ryan's best plays at SS over the last couple years.

I think I'm missing something here.

UZR considered this one of Ryan's best plays over the last few years. Can you figure out why?

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/4/2013 12:33:00 PM (view original):My point is, naturally, I don't NEED a number to say "Jeter has sure lost some range and Ryan is a damn good SS in the field". You seem to NEED to put a -3.7 on Jeter and a 2.6 on Ryan. Why?

In fairness, if we were to make an argument on "who is better, Ryan or Jeter?" we would use numbers. So if there's a defensive number to look at, naturally, you want to try to use it. Except the number could be meaningless if you don't use it in the right way. I want a better number.

I think that's everyone's goal.

No one is married to UZR (or plus/minus or DRS). It's just what we have. When something better gets figured out, we'll use that instead.

And, if the only thing to eat is a **** sandwich, do you chow down? Or do you wait until something better comes along?

How many times have you used fielding percentage in an argument? Because if UZR is a **** sandwich, fielding percentage is the undigested **** sandwich in the stomach of a dead guy buried last month.

I'd venture "none" but, if I did, it was in reference to the number of errors made. A guy with a .990 F% is a better fielder than a guy with a .950 F%, don't you think?

Not necessarily. Errors are subjective and you can't make an error if you don't have the range to get to the ball.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/4/2013 12:33:00 PM (view original):My point is, naturally, I don't NEED a number to say "Jeter has sure lost some range and Ryan is a damn good SS in the field". You seem to NEED to put a -3.7 on Jeter and a 2.6 on Ryan. Why?

In fairness, if we were to make an argument on "who is better, Ryan or Jeter?" we would use numbers. So if there's a defensive number to look at, naturally, you want to try to use it. Except the number could be meaningless if you don't use it in the right way. I want a better number.

I think that's everyone's goal.

No one is married to UZR (or plus/minus or DRS). It's just what we have. When something better gets figured out, we'll use that instead.

And, if the only thing to eat is a **** sandwich, do you chow down? Or do you wait until something better comes along?

How many times have you used fielding percentage in an argument? Because if UZR is a **** sandwich, fielding percentage is the undigested **** sandwich in the stomach of a dead guy buried last month.

I'd venture "none" but, if I did, it was in reference to the number of errors made. A guy with a .990 F% is a better fielder than a guy with a .950 F%, don't you think?

Not necessarily. Errors are subjective and you can't make an error if you don't have the range to get to the ball.

UZR is way better than fielding percentage.

I can see a lack of range by watching a couple of games.

Do you NEED a number, or stat, to determine Ryan is a better defensive SS than Jeter?

Posted by burnsy483 on 9/4/2013 12:29:00 PM (view original):I'm not going to get into the specifics of the article I'm taking this from, but this was considered one of Brendan Ryan's best plays at SS over the last couple years.

I think I'm missing something here.

UZR considered this one of Ryan's best plays over the last few years. Can you figure out why?

How do you know? Link?

Fine. It's an interesting article. Some of it I agree with, some I don't. I didn't want to post it because I didn't want to make this article a topic of conversation; it's been overblown for years, and even I'm sick of it.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/4/2013 12:33:00 PM (view original):My point is, naturally, I don't NEED a number to say "Jeter has sure lost some range and Ryan is a damn good SS in the field". You seem to NEED to put a -3.7 on Jeter and a 2.6 on Ryan. Why?

In fairness, if we were to make an argument on "who is better, Ryan or Jeter?" we would use numbers. So if there's a defensive number to look at, naturally, you want to try to use it. Except the number could be meaningless if you don't use it in the right way. I want a better number.

I think that's everyone's goal.

No one is married to UZR (or plus/minus or DRS). It's just what we have. When something better gets figured out, we'll use that instead.

And, if the only thing to eat is a **** sandwich, do you chow down? Or do you wait until something better comes along?

How many times have you used fielding percentage in an argument? Because if UZR is a **** sandwich, fielding percentage is the undigested **** sandwich in the stomach of a dead guy buried last month.

I'd venture "none" but, if I did, it was in reference to the number of errors made. A guy with a .990 F% is a better fielder than a guy with a .950 F%, don't you think?

Not necessarily. Errors are subjective and you can't make an error if you don't have the range to get to the ball.

UZR is way better than fielding percentage.

I can see a lack of range by watching a couple of games.

Do you NEED a number, or stat, to determine Ryan is a better defensive SS than Jeter?

Do you watch every single game for every single team? I don't.

What about games last year? Games in 2007? Games in 2002? I haven't seen all the games. I can't tell you, without stats, who the best hitter in baseball was in 2009, let alone who the best defender was at every position.

Do you NEED to watch every single game for a team to get a basic understanding of relative defensive abilities?

If you watch a half dozen games of team A and see Jimmy Girliearm consistenty throwing balls from deep in the hole at SS into the dirt in front of the first baseman, while watching a half dozen games of team B and seeing Tommy Cannonarm throwing lasers from the same position into the first baseman's chest, can't you make some sort of a judgement on Jimmy's vs. Tommy's arms?